Parcelforce.. missing wedding dress and forged signature advice please

honeybean

My partner had the same problem with bike gear, he reported to the police but he had paid via paypal and they said the same that all they were not interested as there was a signature
He had paid by paypal but it was taken from his credit card and as it was more than £100 he did a charge back , the police interviewed the driver as it was deemed as fraud he admitted signing for the parcel eventually .My partner could prove he was not at the address. When the delivery was made and he got his money back via his credit card. He had issues with the seller but the card issuer took all the hassle away and dealt with it all for him. Hope you manage to sort it ,drivers need to stop signing for parcels!!!!!

unholyangel

Country_Cousin wrote: »

Original seller gets nothing - no dress and no money. How will that work. Will Parcel Force have to pay twice, once to cover the refund and then again to recompense seller for a dress that they no longer have?
Just wondering aloud really.

I think you forgot that the seller has already been paid.

honeybean wrote: »

My partner had the same problem with bike gear, he reported to the police but he had paid via paypal and they said the same that all they were not interested as there was a signature
He had paid by paypal but it was taken from his credit card and as it was more than £100 he did a charge back , the police interviewed the driver as it was deemed as fraud he admitted signing for the parcel eventually .My partner could prove he was not at the address. When the delivery was made and he got his money back via his credit card. He had issues with the seller but the card issuer took all the hassle away and dealt with it all for him. Hope you manage to sort it ,drivers need to stop signing for parcels!!!!!

In order for section 75 to apply, there needs to be a clear consumer > card company > retailer relationship - using paypal usually breaks that chain as the chain then goes consumer > card company > paypal > retailer. Most card companies wont entertain claims against retailers where paypal was used as the payment method.

Not only that, but a successful section 75 against paypal usually results in debt collectors chasing you for the funds a few years later since you are not charging back against the seller but against paypal themselves. And of course, those people also had their paypal accounts banned (search the forums or google.....its came up more than a few times).

photome

swingaloo wrote: »

I am aware of the electronic signatures being an ex postie! From what you say then if you were expecting the delivery today you must have paid for 'Next Day delivery'.

What I don't understand is why you would pay and arrange for next day delivery when you were going to be at work and would not be in to receive the dress.

What is so difficult to understand? I have often arranged for delivery when I know I wouldnt be there, knowing that the parcel would get taken back to the depot for me to go and collect and sign for, I suspect many working people do the same.

Aside form that parcelforce have admitted their mistake. I think the Op asked you (as an expostie) if you ever left something outside a house after forging a signature?

It is shocking that a postie should forge a signature

Morglin

The only one at fault here is the postman, and no one else!

What is the point of signed delivery, if an idle postman can just forge a signature, and dump the parcel on the doorstep? :doh:

I hope the OP gets her money back, the Post office pay out, and the postman gets his P45....,

Lin :whistle:

hollydays

hollydays wrote: »

Was it visibly marked as " fragile wedding dress" then?

I ask this because the only time I had a parcel go missing was when the seller wrote on the outside what it was.

Money_maker

Morglin wrote: »

The only one at fault here is the postman, and no one else!

This is not strictly correct. The delivery company will shoulder the cost as they made an error. The true blame lies with the thieving toerags who stole the package. So many tales on here of parcels that go missing. Yes, someone has to pay but I rather think it should be the thief. Make sure you report to the police, OP.

unholyangel

Money_maker wrote: »

This is not strictly correct. The delivery company will shoulder the cost as they made an error. The true blame lies with the thieving toerags who stole the package. So many tales on here of parcels that go missing. Yes, someone has to pay but I rather think it should be the thief. Make sure you report to the police, OP.

To determine who is to blame usually the "but for" test is applied.

Would the package still have been stolen if the courier didnt leave it on the doorstep/had delivered it to the OP as it should have been?

If yes, then the courier is not liable. If no, then the courier is liable (and therefore is to "blame" in the eyes of the law).

PennyForThem_2

The courier is to blame entirely. The behavior of signing falsely and leaving on doorstep was entirely against the contract.

themull1

What dress was it? i can try and find one for you.

Hermione_Granger

PennyForThem wrote: »

The courier is to blame entirely. The behavior of signing falsely and leaving on doorstep was entirely against the contract.

Against the terms of the contract and in all probability, illegal.

Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2